Tree of the knowledge of good and evil
Discussion of "original sin"Rate Topic:

ALL of those different versions of The Bible meet every one of the requirements you set forth.

Sure, and maybe water isn't really wet; maybe that's just a lack of understanding on my part too.

:shrug:

Look Roger, I tried to bow out of this thread several posts ago, and you said "Sorry Monty - can't let you leave on that one". I'm ready again to bow out, because I'm confident my point has not only been made, but has been proven beyond reasonable dispute. I assure you I can keep going because there are plenty of other examples I haven't even mentioned yet. But it isn't my desire to wreck the thread, or to continue what is basically off-topic (since your original point concerned Adam & Eve & the tree of knowledge.)

Are you willing to let me go this time? I'd like to believe this was just an honest intellectual discussion and there are no hard feelings. I certainly harbor none.

Okay Monty - sorry to see you go I enjoy discussions with you - take care - Roger
:coolshades:

Hold on a second! Perhaps we can continue after all! I can't believe I missed this the first time through:

rogerg, on 08 April 2019 - 09:13 AM, said:

Edited to include: It doesn't seem logical to me that a tree named tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would produce a literal fruit.
The name itself seems to me to be a symbolic representative of the concept of the Law of law

Now that's significant, and it's not even necessarily off-topic; It concerns the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as you intended from the very beginning.

Do you see what that means? It means we AGREE that not everything in The Bible can be taken literally; that some things are merely symbolic. It's true you don't agree with me that there are mistakes and/or contradictions, but we DO agree about literal inaccuracies.

Hold on a second! Perhaps we can continue after all! I can't believe I missed this the first time through:

Now that's significant, and it's not even necessarily off-topic; It concerns the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as you intended from the very beginning.

Do you see what that means? It means we AGREE that not everything in The Bible can be taken literally; that some things are merely symbolic. It's true you don't agree with me that there are mistakes and/or contradictions, but we DO agree about literal inaccuracies.

Whaddaya know! Common ground!

:woohoo:

Just goes to show you that symbolic non-literal miracles can happen (lol)

Seriously though, what you've posted can be discussed further -- a symbol, though a symbol, is still representative in some way of something real, no ?

Regarding day and its different meanings...yes, it has different meanings....but Genesis is clear in saying, "there was evening and there was morning, the first day". It says that for each of the days of creation. So I'm not sure how that use of day is seen as anything other than a 24 hour day. I know it is, and people have all their thoughts and ways of explaining. I like seeing the simpleness of it....without twisting and turning and trying to make other things try to fit. I guess for me....I don't care that the world seems billions of years old. It's not something that causes me to wonder and question....God can do whatever He wants to....even speak rocks into existence which would date as billions of years old. I mean, God took Jesus (Who was in the beginning...with God and as God...John 1) and turned Him into an embryo which grew into a baby which eventually became the man Who would die on the cross for my sins. Some things just make no sense as to why or how. We see through a glass darkly...and one day, I expect that we will understand. Though it is sometimes fun to wonder how, why, what?!?!

After rereading my last reply to you, I realize that it may have tended to end our particular dialog when I said that it might be off thread. If your impressions
was that I was trying to end it, I apologize, it actually was not my intention. I was just clumsy with my thoughts. So... if you'd like to reply, please feel free to do so and I'd
be very interested to hear what you have to say. Thanks Roger

Yes, I agree that symbolism can still represent something real. For a perfect example, the symbolism of a six-day creation doesn't change the fact that it was indeed God who created the universe.

B)

Monty , been thinking about your reply and just wanted to elaborate further on it if I might: Where a book such as the Bible is concerned -- a one of a kind book -- written by God Himself such that every jot and tittle is perfect (in its original), and which conveys exactly what He wanted to convey, all of the symbolism, allegory, and parables contained therein must be considered as being designed primarily (and most importantly) as a depiction and illustration of His plan of salvation. God chose nations, events, and people of this world who are contained in the Bible to be the types and figures of things spiritual(or things to come)... but... they themselves were not the object(s) of it-- they were only tools employed by God. From a salvation standpoint, for the most part, the gospel is revealed thru symbolic, allegorical and parabolic revelation. With that in mind, I might mention that the object of God's eyes is NOT this earth NOR of its creation history. The object of God's eyes is the world which is yet to come: the NEW heavens and the NEW earth. This sin cursed earth will be folded up and destroyed like an old rag. Consequently, when we read, for example, of a "six-day" creation, in order to have full understanding (and I remind myself of this too), it behooves us greatly to always reconcile it (and all) biblical phrases back to the spiritual they represent, and which ultimately will always bring us to Christ.

Monty , been thinking about your reply and just wanted to elaborate further on it if I might: Where a book such as the Bible is concerned -- a one of a kind book -- written by God Himself such that every jot and tittle is perfect (in its original), and which conveys exactly what He wanted to convey, all of the symbolism, allegory, and parables contained therein must be considered as being designed primarily (and most importantly) as a depiction and illustration of His plan of salvation. God chose nations, events, and people of this world who are contained in the Bible to be the types and figures of things spiritual(or things to come)... but... they themselves were not the object(s) of it-- they were only tools employed by God. From a salvation standpoint, for the most part, the gospel is revealed thru symbolic, allegorical and parabolic revelation. With that in mind, I might mention that the object of God's eyes is NOT this earth NOR of its creation history. The object of God's eyes is the world which is yet to come: the NEW heavens and the NEW earth. This sin cursed earth will be folded up and destroyed like an old rag. Consequently, when we read, for example, of a "six-day" creation, in order to have full understanding (and I remind myself of this too), it behooves us greatly to always reconcile it (and all) biblical phrases back to the spiritual they represent, and which ultimately will always bring us to Christ.

I don't disagree with any of that. :) My only point was that after us imperfect humans began translating the original God-breathed scripture into other, human created languages, certain translation errors were inevitable. Those errors by NO MEANS reduce the goodness of the Bible, nor the Holiness of the Bible, nor the spirituality of the Bible, nor the ultimate intent of the Bible's authors. And even if we delude ourselves there are "no translation errors" anywhere in the Bible, the fact remains that you, yourself have acknowledged there are passages in the Bible that must be accepted as symbolic rather than literally factual.

Therefore the stubborn insistence on a literal six-day creation is really very silly and misguided, when we are surrounded by so much irrefutable proof that the earth is billions of years old. I repeat my earlier point: Why on earth would God leave so much proof everywhere we look of something that isn't true?? I don't for one second believe God is "dishonest" and has tried to "trick" us, but that is what I'd be forced to believe in order to accept the "six-day creation" assertion.

I don't disagree with any of that. :) My only point was that after us imperfect humans began translating the original God-breathed scripture into other, human created languages, certain translation errors were inevitable. Those errors by NO MEANS reduce the goodness of the Bible, nor the Holiness of the Bible, nor the spirituality of the Bible, nor the ultimate intent of the Bible's authors. And even if we delude ourselves there are "no translation errors" anywhere in the Bible, the fact remains that you, yourself have acknowledged there are passages in the Bible that must be accepted as symbolic rather than literally factual.

Therefore the stubborn insistence on a literal six-day creation is really very silly and misguided, when we are surrounded by so much irrefutable proof that the earth is billions of years old. I repeat my earlier point: Why on earth would God leave so much proof everywhere we look of something that isn't true?? I don't for one second believe God is "dishonest" and has tried to "trick" us, but that is what I'd be forced to believe in order to accept the "six-day creation" assertion.

B)

I believe the world WAS created in six literal days but each of those six days are representative of something else-- of an infinitely more profound message: in this case, God's salvation plan. Now, to your contention that God would not leave so much irrefutable proof. What makes the proof you state, proof? God never made any such assertation of the world being older (or younger) than what He said it was. If He did, where is it? If He didn't say it and it was, we're all in a lot of trouble.If what you say is true, that the Bible's description of creation is incorrect, then it can't be trusted. God introduced the world as being a fully mature entity - no maturation necessary. Nothing before the fall had begun in infancy nor had to grow into maturity, right? Proof is proof when viewed from a certain perspective. At the time of the creation, no such perspective existed in the Bible: everything just WAS -- especially since God clearly informed us of the timeframe from the beginning in no uncertain terms. If we choose not to believe Him, then mistake is ours. The below verses seem pretty clear to me. I believe that the Bible has to be understood based upon its words otherwise it becomes open to all sorts of misinterpretations and worse. This is one of the things that makes it so wonderful -- we only need to run to and trust it implicitly for understanding, sometimes even in spite of our personal prejudices -- that's part of faith-- we either believe it or we don't no middle ground.

[Gen 1:5 KJV] 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Luk 24:25 KJV] 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

I believe the world WAS created in six literal days but each of those six days are representative of something else-- of an infinitely more profound message: in this case, God's salvation plan. Now, to your contention that God would not leave so much irrefutable proof. What makes the proof you state, proof? God never made any such assertation of the world being older (or younger) than what He said it was. If He did, where is it? If He didn't say it and it was, we're all in a lot of trouble.If what you say is true, that the Bible's description of creation is incorrect, then it can't be trusted. God introduced the world as being a fully mature entity - no maturation necessary. Nothing before the fall had begun in infancy nor had to grow into maturity, right? Proof is proof when viewed from a certain perspective. At the time of the creation, no such perspective existed in the Bible: everything just WAS -- especially since God clearly informed us of the timeframe from the beginning in no uncertain terms. If we choose not to believe Him, then mistake is ours. The below verses seem pretty clear to me. I believe that the Bible has to be understood based upon its words otherwise it becomes open to all sorts of misinterpretations and worse. This is one of the things that makes it so wonderful -- we only need to run to and trust it implicitly for understanding, sometimes even in spite of our personal prejudices -- that's part of faith-- we either believe it or we don't no middle ground.

[Gen 1:5 KJV] 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

[Luk 24:25 KJV] 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

Everything you just said directly contradicts your earlier statement that you don't believe there was an actual literal tree that produced an actual literal fruit. Why is it that you can find and recognize symbolism as opposed to literal accuracy, but nobody else can?

As for the proofs I mentioned, I'm talking about things which can be observed with the eyes God provided us, tested with the brains God provided us, and repeatedly and consistently produce the same results and observations. Here's a very simplistic example of what I mean: If you drop a heavy rock on your bare foot, and it hurts, you haven't necessarily "proven" anything. But if you do it a hundred times and every single time you do it, it hurts, I'd say you have proven that dropping a heavy rock on your bare foot hurts.

That's proof: Something that can be demonstrated to be true repeatedly and consistently.

1) Re - The "young earth" that is just made to look billions of years old: To me that is one of the least plausible arguments ever presented. Why? Because I don't for one second believe in a "dishonest" God; a "trickster"; a God who would deliberately leave solid proof and facts and evidence of a several-billion-year-old planet when the planet isn't several billion years old. I just can't buy that assertion, because I'd have to believe God deliberately tried to trick us.

2) Re - The "evening and the morning were the first day": How could "day", even in that quote, represent the 24-hour period of time between two risings of the sun when the sun itself wasn't created until the fourth day?

B)

The key phrase here is the words "and the evening and the morning were the "first Day" (If memory serves the words here are Yom Echod or Day (Yom) One (echod) IOW "Day 1"...these is a question in my mind regarding the first day thing..Typically a "Day" in Hebrew thought went from Sundown to sundown..and yet here it says from the "evening and the morning"...Whatcha think?

Kestrel...

P.S. I wonder how much of what is called "Science" is really just as much a matter of "Faith" as is your religious foundation?

I mean really how can you irrefutably prove the Earth was created in six days or six billion years? a lot of life lands us in the "Faith realm" (example, have you ever been to Spain?..(but you kinda like the music right?) No?..how do you know its there?..comes down to "testimony" that you feel is reliable. Just saying.

Everything you just said directly contradicts your earlier statement that you don't believe there was an actual literal tree that produced an actual literal fruit. Why is it that you can find and recognize symbolism as opposed to literal accuracy, but nobody else can?

As for the proofs I mentioned, I'm talking about things which can be observed with the eyes God provided us, tested with the brains God provided us, and repeatedly and consistently produce the same results and observations. Here's a very simplistic example of what I mean: If you drop a heavy rock on your bare foot, and it hurts, you haven't necessarily "proven" anything. But if you do it a hundred times and every single time you do it, it hurts, I'd say you have proven that dropping a heavy rock on your bare foot hurts.

That's proof: Something that can be demonstrated to be true repeatedly and consistently.

B)

Biblically speaking, a tree is symbolic of the salvation message, while being a thing of some kind. For example:

[Mat 7:15-17 KJV] 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
[Rom 11:24 KJV] 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

[Psa 37:35 KJV] 35 I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree.

(by the way above an indirect reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil)

"As for the proofs I mentioned, I'm talking about things which can be observed with the eyes God provided us, tested with the brains God provided us"

Uh oh, can't do that !! If you did, you'd be placing your eyes and ears on a par with God's Bible for divine revelation and thereby adding to it- definitely not allowed. The Bible ALONE

[Rev 22:18-19 KJV] 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
[Rev 22:19 KJV] 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

The key phrase here is the words "and the evening and the morning were the "first Day" (If memory serves the words here are Yom Echod or Day (Yom) One (echod) IOW "Day 1"...these is a question in my mind regarding the first day thing..Typically a "Day" in Hebrew thought went from Sundown to sundown..and yet here it says from the "evening and the morning"...Whatcha think?

Kestrel...

P.S. I wonder how much of what is called "Science" is really just as much a matter of "Faith" as is your religious foundation?

I mean really how can you irrefutably prove the Earth was created in six days or six billion years? a lot of life lands us in the "Faith realm" (example, have you ever been to Spain?..(but you kinda like the music right?) No?..how do you know its there?..comes down to "testimony" that you feel is reliable. Just saying.

The Bible tells us that it is so -- all conclusions we come to must be able to stand the scrutiny of the entire Bible, and the entire Bible alone -- not just by parts of it, or by other
non biblical factors that are external which we'd like to weave into the question

P.S. I wonder how much of what is called "Science" is really just as much a matter of "Faith" as is your religious foundation?

But that's just it: Anything which must be taken on faith as opposed observable, irrefutable proof doesn't qualify as "science". I openly acknowledge my belief in God is based purely on faith; I couldn't possibly prove (or disprove) the existence of God, nor would I want to. But the fact that the earth is billions of years old is a proven, irrefutable fact.

rogerg, on 10 April 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

Uh oh, can't do that !! If you did, you'd be placing your eyes and ears on a par with God's Bible for divine revelation and thereby adding to it- definitely not allowed. The Bible ALONE

Wait - God gave us eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to touch, brains to think, etc, and we're not allowed to use them? Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't believe for one second God wants mindless automatons incapable of logic or independent thought.

And frankly, if I was ever convinced that IS what He wants from us, then I would be forced to abandon Christianity.

rogerg, on 10 April 2019 - 01:54 PM, said:

The Bible tells us that it is so -- all conclusions we come to must be able to stand the scrutiny of the entire Bible, and the entire Bible alone -- not just by parts of it, or by other
non biblical factors that are external which we'd like to weave into the question

There's that circular logic again: "The Bible is always correct, and the proof is that it says it's always correct, and since it's always correct, it must be true."

But that's just it: Anything which must be taken on faith as opposed observable, irrefutable proof doesn't qualify as "science". I openly acknowledge my belief in God is based purely on faith; I couldn't possibly prove (or disprove) the existence of God, nor would I want to. But the fact that the earth is billions of years old is a proven, irrefutable fact.

Wait - God gave us eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to touch, brains to think, etc, and we're not allowed to use them? Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't believe for one second God wants mindless automatons incapable of logic or independent thought.

And frankly, if I was ever convinced that IS what He wants from us, then I would be forced to abandon Christianity.

There's that circular logic again: "The Bible is always correct, and the proof is that it says it's always correct, and since it's always correct, it must be true."

:nono:

"Wait - God gave us eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to touch, brains to think, etc, and we're not allowed to use them? Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't believe for one second God wants mindless automatons incapable of logic or independent thought."

Not what I meant and of course I totally agree. We definitely are to think etc. that's why God chose to write the Bible but my point was with regards to what we THINK ABOUT AND TRUST for things spiritual. Based upon what you're saying, the Bible would be compared to external evidence, with the external evidence being primary. However, just the reverse is true: all thing spiritual should be compared and subjective to the Bible with it being the sole standard of truth.

Regarding mindlessness, just the opposite is true, God works thru the mind too:

[Rom 12:2 KJV] 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

"Wait - God gave us eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to touch, brains to think, etc, and we're not allowed to use them? Sorry, I don't buy that. I don't believe for one second God wants mindless automatons incapable of logic or independent thought."

Not what I meant and of course I totally agree. We definitely are to think etc. that's why God chose to write the Bible but my point was with regards to what we THINK ABOUT AND TRUST for things spiritual. Based upon what you're saying, the Bible would be compared to external evidence, with the external evidence being primary. However, just the reverse is true: all thing spiritual should be compared and subjective to the Bible with it being the sole standard of truth.

Regarding mindlessness, just the opposite is true, God works thru the mind too:

[Rom 12:2 KJV] 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Yup, I agree the Bible is the go-to source for all things spiritual. Never attempted to suggest otherwise.